FMIC is this true

[TLicense]

Assuming the thing *IS* ducted, otherwise, at low speeds, the stock (ducted at the rear of the water rad) fan will pull air from around the (un-ducted) FMIC. The problem starts at higher road speeds where the ram effect from the bumper opening is crippled, as the air firstly takes the path of least resistance, and secondly the ram effect is drastically reduced by a big sod off core of a FMIC being in the path of the water rad air flow. IMO it's a problem at higher road speeds and high engine loads, whih I think you agree with, anyway Tony

 

Absolutely.

[Stevie Boy]

I wouldn't wanna argue which is best SMIC of FMIC, as the FMIC from a cooling and pressure drop efficiency introduces many con's which arn't present with the stock SMIC.

 

One improvement i did expect and feel i did encounter replacing the entire stock set up with the Blitz LM V-Spec was the fact that all the stock rubber boost hoses are replaced with hard pipes.

 

I know hard pipes are available for stock SMIC set up, but i am comparing difference I experienced with replacing stock SMIC set up with an aftermarket FMIC package. Which came complete with step up's etc into large bore hard pipework with very short run silicone hoses (where the hard pipes literaly meet each other anyway).

 

Anyway i feel perhaps where Toyota original used long run (reinforced) rubber hoses, these would expand when boost pressure rises, as it appears on the 1st main top boost hose Toyota added a sleeve which i assume is to stop the hose over expanding?

 

Well on fitting my FMIC i feel there was a noticable difference in boost pressure response where perhaps previously initially pressure increase spent on expanding these hoses, so i wonder whether improvements people seem to experience on switching to FMIC is not only down to replacement of nackered "10year old" SMIC, but also the replacement of stock hoses with the "hard" pipe work. Just my thoughts........

[TLicense]

I maybe half cut, but I'm having trouble working out why it's OK for a Skyline to have a FMIC & not a Supe

 

I've no experience of the Skyline lay-out, but as Chris says

 

...because it's fully ducted, and is of quite modest thickness.

 

[gaijin]

Feel this entire debate redundant:fmic's are fitted to any and all turbo cars,regardless of make ,producing any kind of significant power increase(the 'increase' being a moot point)Is everyone out of step?There are of course good and bad intercoolers.The core design being of significance.Don't fit a bad one.

[jevansio]

I've no experience of the Skyline lay-out, but as Chris says

 

 

 

Yes, so why does it appear that the fitment of fully ducted modest thickness FMIC's on Supe's is being looked down upon as opposed to SMIC's on this thread?

[TLicense]

Anyway i feel perhaps where Toyota original used long run (reinforced) rubber hoses, these would expand when boost pressure rises, as it appears on the 1st main top boost hose Toyota added a sleeve which i assume is to stop the hose over expanding?

 

 

Hmmm I'm not too sure about this. I know what you mean about them expanding, but they would have to expand a great deal to make that much difference, as the kind of expansion I've seen in terms of the volume of the entire system is quite small.

 

I thought the sleeve was there as an insulator to keep the temps cool.

[TLicense]

Yes, so why does it appear that the fitment of fully ducted modest thickness FMIC's on Supe's is being looked down upon as opposed to SMIC's on this thread?

 

 

I wouldn't say the idea is looked down upon. I think the lack of testing to find the optimum thickness is what causes concerns.

[Chris Wilson]

OK, I've been meaning to sit down and write this for a little while, but have never been able to find the time / enthusiasm . But seeing as we're talking about it, here goes.....

 

GREAT post Tony, May I just mention that big FMIC's with big holes in none stock bumpers will almost certainly increase drag a large amount, for all those top speed chasers? Forcing so much air into the engine bay may well not do a lot to help front end lift either?

[Pete]

Anyone want a brand new Stillen front?

[Chris Wilson]

Anyone want a brand new Stillen front?

 

You know you love it, and I *suspect* you really want neons...

[jevansio]

I wouldn't say the idea is looked down upon. I think the lack of testing to find the optimum thickness is what causes concerns.

As mentioned by Thorin many posts ago, this whole debate is based around what sort of BHP figures & car spec you have, running a SMIC on a Supra spec'd up to produce 800+ bhp is insane, so is running a massive FMIC unducted on a BPU Supe. Wouldn't mind hearing the input of people on this thread who have commented on which is best, at which type of car they are refererring.

[Chris Wilson]

If the rubber pipes doubled in internal volume under boost i doubt it would be noticeable or even measurable, such would be the ratio of volume increase to the volume of air flowing. a 3 litre engine under i bar above atmo boost is effectively a six litre air pump, and it's moving a HUGE amount of air. Hardpipes are 99% bling (awful word, sorry), and often trouble if they are poorly bent or poorly swaged.

 

The rubber sheath on the intercooler pipe near the stock air filter stops the actual inner hose fretting when it expands, it's very near things, the boot is effectively sacrificial. Heat rejection or absorption on the outer walls of a pipe flowing relatively low pressure air at the speeds the air flows under boost is again trivial, the air molecules aren't in wall contact long enough to exchange much heat energy, hence why wrapping things in Bacofoil is a bit pointless once the engine is revving.

[Homer]

GREAT post Tony, May I just mention that big FMIC's with big holes in none stock bumpers will almost certainly increase drag a large amount, for all those top speed chasers? Forcing so much air into the engine bay may well not do a lot to help front end lift either?

 

Almost certainly drag is increased on these visually pleasing front bumpers, but even at my modest power output, it WILL reach nearly 200mph with enough space. It is absolutely planted to the road above 150mph. I've driven two other cars capable of these speeds and the Supra felt no less stable than the other two perhaps more so than one of them...

 

edited - sorry Chris, not trying to knock you here. I was just stating that the cars are no restricting necessarily restricting their maxiumum speeds with all aftermarket bumpers. I can imagine however that the acceleration at very high speeds is reduced do to the much larger drag created by a huge duct at the front.

[Stevie Boy]

 

I thought the sleeve was there as an insulator to keep the temps cool.

 

I haven't seen the sleeve and hose for quite a while now as been a few years since i removed it, but IIRC it only covered the main centre section and wasn't a tight fit around it, i do recall when revving the engine while examining the hose you could see it expand untill it reached the restriction on the thick sleeve. As there are no sleeves on the other main boost hoses i wonder how these behave under pressure as never paid much attention as i was just curious as to the purpose of that sleeve.

 

I'm still running a stock front on mine, with a small solid lip spoiler replacing the stock rubber job, the coolers i put in the empty side apartures are ducted but i'm yet to duct the FMIC (except for the carbon slam panel trim), i plan on doing the whole lot together as the makeshift resin ducts id knocked up for the coolers look a bit unslightly and one has begun to open up around the bottom edge of the transmission cooler so no doubt some air will be taking the easier route through the gap.

[Stevie Boy]

If the rubber pipes doubled in internal volume under boost i doubt it would be noticeable or even measurable, such would be the ratio of volume increase to the volume of air flowing. a 3 litre engine under i bar above atmo boost is effectively a six litre air pump, and it's moving a HUGE amount of air. Hardpipes are 99% bling (awful word, sorry), and often trouble if they are poorly bent or poorly swaged.

 

The rubber sheath on the intercooler pipe near the stock air filter stops the actual inner hose fretting when it expands, it's very near things, the boot is effectively sacrificial. Heat rejection or absorption on the outer walls of a pipe flowing relatively low pressure air at the speeds the air flows under boost is again trivial, the air molecules aren't in wall contact long enough to exchange much heat energy, hence why wrapping things in Bacofoil is a bit pointless once the engine is revving.

 

 

Got bit sidetracked halfway through my post, meanwhile looks like you confirmed my suspicions of the sleeve stopping the hose from over expanding (and therefore damaging the internal reinforcing fretting).

 

I'm suprised you feel hardpipes are 99% bling over rubber, but you do have the race car experience so who am i to argue.

 

Would the rubber hoses really have to expand to such a great extent to feel a noticeable difference in part throttle boost response?

After all i'm not posing a scinario were "no boost" is being produced due to the hoses swelling up large enough to absorb the displacement of the 3lt engine, just the minor difference that may be experienced in response in comparison to no/minimal expansion.

[Chris Wilson]

Turbo lag is something all engine makers are desperate to eradicate, or at least minimise, hence the sequentials. Honestly, if Toyota thought reducing the rubber in the I/C piping would help reduce lag they'd have done it, and so would countless other engine makers, they don't, `cos it doesn't (to any noticeable degree whatsoever). They'd also have fitted one of those wonderful better flowing air filter panels that even filters better than stock, and a magnet round the fuel pipe

[JohnA]

If I were to improve on the Supra's intercooling I'd go for *augmenting* the excellent SMIC.

Sure, on a highly modified engine there will be extra heat that needs to be disposed of after the SMIC, so I would deal with that (instead of throwing away the whole SMIC).

 

An air/water chargecooler would be a good idea to fit, since their water/air heat exchangers can be long and cylindrical without really needing to be in direct airflow.

We do have such a location in a stock TT right after the SMIC, going towards the throttle plate.

The 'rad' part can be in the passenger side or even at the front somewhere since it will be much smaller and thinner than a FMIC. It won't have that much heat to dispose of, just the excess that managed to make it through the SMIC.

Water to air heat exchange is much more efficient than air/air, hence the modest size of the components. Since the heatload will also be reduced, heatsoak is unlikely to become an issue in real-life use.

 

The above is what I'd consider if I were to improve the MKIV's intercooling.

1. It works in tandem with the stock design, not against it.

2. It disrupts the engine bay airflow as little as possible

3. It continues to take full advantage of the SMIC design and location

4. Fitting will only involve small-diameter hoses, so it is easier to accommodate without hacking away half the car.

5. Charge air temps will be very-very close to ambient, with potential to even go below (during pod runs for example)

 

On the downside it's a low-key design, got not bling, no bragging rights for a massive number of i/c 'rows' or bhp potential.

It won't get you laid.

[Wez]

For a charge cooler wouldnt you need a pump, rad and the charge cooler itself?

 

What unit would you recommend for this then?

 

EDIT: just to add, the stock setup seems to work ok with the AC unit infront of the rad, if this was replaced with a charge cooler rad of equal size would that be sufficient?

[JohnA]

For a charge cooler wouldnt you need a pump, rad and the charge cooler itself?

Yes. Also a small water tank.

Pumps are small and reliable, hoses are thin enough to negotiate easily around the front. It can be thermostatically engaged, so won't even run if it doesn't need to.

 

On a highly modified car the aircon might have been removed. In that case, the chargecooler rad can easily replace the missing condenser, with minimal disruption around it. With such a large-surface rad a chargecooler can be quite effective even without an SMIC before it - but here we are trying to minimise the amount of heat we are dumping in the engine bay, so the SMIC will have disposed of the bulk.

 

I didn't go this route because I decided to go for a more experimental approach (it can potentially make even the SMIC redundant)

[JohnA]

...

EDIT: just to add, the stock setup seems to work ok with the AC unit infront of the rad, if this was replaced with a charge cooler rad of equal size would that be sufficient?

The rad that I'd use for such a supra setup would be like a large oil cooler.

If the chargecooler was the sole source of intercooling then something like the condenser would do nicely.

But there is no need for such size, it only has to cope with the excess that makes it through the SMIC. Most of the energy has already been dumped in the wheelarch;)

[Chris Wilson]

For a charge cooler wouldnt you need a pump, rad and the charge cooler itself?

 

What unit would you recommend for this then?

 

EDIT: just to add, the stock setup seems to work ok with the AC unit infront of the rad, if this was replaced with a charge cooler rad of equal size would that be sufficient?

 

Removing the air con condenser will help greatly with engine water cooling, it's a big flow restrictor.

[jevansio]

IMHO using a chargecooler alongside the SMIC is a bad idea. Firstly there are more disadvantages than you have listed (esp with the idea of running 2 together).

 

1. Weight, CC setups are heavier than IC setups. If you're planning in running them in tandem, you're not only carrying the weight of the SMIC, but the addition weight of the CC Core, prerad, pump & water.

 

2. Using 2 cooling systems you either need to run them in parallel, which means dividing the airflow from the compressor, & also bringing the 2 flows together again before the throttle, this is not as simple as it sounds esp if the 2 cores (SMIC & CC) have different pressure drops. Running them in series is simpler but you then have introduced 2 pressure drops into the system instead of 1.

 

3. The size & postion of the prerad & pump size is crucial to a well setup system. The water passing through the prerad needs to be cooled. Prerad too small = water doesn't get cooled enough, pump too big & water passes through the rad too quickly & doesn't get a chance too cool. There is more to getting a well setup CC system than an IC system.

 

4. More things to go wrong, pump failure, need to start monitoring water temps, it's basically like ANOTHER coolant system in the car.

 

5. Cost, the price of a well setup CC system will be double even treble that of even the £1000 HKS & Greddy units

 

You do mention the "Water to air heat exchange is much more efficient than air/air" which is true, but have you considered in an IC setup there is only 1 lot of transfer taking place (air/air), in a CC you have 2 lots (air/water/air).

 

I'm not trying to dis the idea, it just needs a lot of thought if it's gonna outperform either of the IC systems on their own.

[Pete]

You know you love it, and I *suspect* you really want neons...

I'll have yours off you when you're bored of them.

[jevansio]

On the other side they don't have to be low key, they can be bling & have just as much bhp potential (the Precision core I bought for my old MR2 was rated at 900bhp, they are prodcuing them well over that now). I never got round to installing the system (only buying the parts), Dan the lad who I sold the car to fitted it.

 

Pic for ya:

 

And the prerad:

[Stevie Boy]

IMHO using a chargecooler alongside the SMIC is a bad idea. Firstly there are more disadvantages than you have listed (esp with the idea of running 2 together).

 

1. Weight, CC setups are heavier than IC setups. If you're planning in running them in tandem, you're not only carrying the weight of the SMIC, but the addition weight of the CC Core, prerad, pump & water.

 

2. Using 2 cooling systems you either need to run them in parallel, which means dividing the airflow from the compressor, & also bringing the 2 flows together again before the throttle, this is not as simple as it sounds esp if the 2 cores (SMIC & CC) have different pressure drops. Running them in series is simpler but you then have introduced 2 pressure drops into the system instead of 1.

 

3. The size & postion of the prerad & pump size is crucial to a well setup system. The water passing through the prerad needs to be cooled. Prerad too small = water doesn't get cooled enough, pump too big & water passes through the rad too quickly & doesn't get a chance too cool. There is more to getting a well setup CC system than an IC system.

 

4. More things to go wrong, pump failure, need to start monitoring water temps, it's basically like ANOTHER coolant system in the car.

 

5. Cost, the price of a well setup CC system will be double even treble that of even the £1000 HKS & Greddy units

 

You do mention the "Water to air heat exchange is much more efficient than air/air" which is true, but have you considered in an IC setup there is only 1 lot of transfer taking place (air/air), in a CC you have 2 lots (air/water/air).

 

I'm not trying to dis the idea, it just needs a lot of thought if it's gonna outperform either of the IC systems on their own.

 

Some good points raised there, some might also have said, If having a CC would have a benificial effect "TOYOTA would have used one", but may not be considering engine builders surely have to keep to budgets, reduce the number and expense of components to minimum needed to do the job sufficiently and also for reliability, but not necessarily without scope for improvement.